Real talk though, the backwards raked frontal turret roof sections on German battleships were a known major flaw, and nobody but the Germans can really answer as to why they continued doing it well into the 1930's. Literally all it achieves is to make your turrets MORE vulnerable to incoming fire.

Real talk though, the backwards raked frontal turret roof sections on German battleships were a known major flaw, and nobody but the Germans can really answer as to why they continued doing it well into the 1930's. Literally all it achieves is to make your turrets MORE vulnerable to incoming fire.

Real talk though, the backwards raked frontal turret roof sections on German battleships were a known major flaw, and nobody but the Germans can really answer as to why they continued doing it well into the 1930's. Literally all it achieves is to make your turrets MORE vulnerable to incoming fire.

Lol, I clicked this thread to say the exact same thing. "DSeehafer incoming"

Edit: It seems that I'm still logged into my Corgi account on my phone >.>

German turrets were poorly armored. There's no arguing against that. But your angle on your second image and your attempt to try to tie it to Rodney is laughable. That line shows near about a 45-degree angle. In order for Rodney's hells to be falling that steeply they'd need to be fired from about 32.5km.... long before she started firing on Bismarck.

As for Scharnhorst, yeah, they needed to raise the deck to make space for the machinery and in doing so created literally the world's smallest weak-spot. It had nothing to do with stupidity, as the author of this thread so immaturely tries to insinuate.

German ships had their weaknesses, to argue otherwise would be false. But then they also had their strengths. I could make a thread pointing out all the weaknesses in 1930s American designs or any other nation for that matter, but it wouldn't mean that their ships as a whole were bad.

Everybodys waiting around for me to rebuke this guy. There's nothing here that needs rebuking (well, besides the angle on that first image). I'm not some nut-job wehraboo who is unwilling or unable to admit that German ships/tanks/planes etc had their weaknesses.

German turrets were poorly armored. There's no arguing against that. But your angle on your second image and your attempt to try to tie it to Rodney is laughable. That line shows near about a 45-degree angle. In order for Rodney's hells to be falling that steeply they'd need to be fired from about 32.5km.... long before she started firing on Bismarck.

As for Scharnhorst, yeah, they needed to raise the deck to make space for the machinery and in doing so created literally the world's smallest weak-spot. It had nothing to do with stupidity, as the author of this thread so immaturely tries to insinuate.

German ships had their weaknesses, to argue otherwise would be false. But then they also had their strengths. I could make a thread pointing out all the weaknesses in 1930s American designs or any other nation for that matter, but it wouldn't mean that their ships as a whole were bad.

Everybodys waiting around for me to rebuke this guy. There's nothing here that needs rebuking (well, besides the angle on that first image). I'm not some nut-job wehraboo who is unwilling or unable to admit that German ships/tanks/planes etc had their weaknesses.

Every nations boat had their weaknesses , Germans just have a little bit more. No offense

about that angle , well I didnt draw it the right impact angle at 20km , but it's just for the point ✔️

For miss scharnhorst, no matter how small it is , it is a weak spot, and the older designer knows it and tries to cover it up with a upper belt， while scharn didnt, and got blasted by DOY . Luck doesn't come in handle when u need it, so better prevent something bad happening than preying it will ever get hit.

Every nations boat had their weaknesses , Germans just have a little bit more. No offense

about that angle , well I didnt draw it the right impact angle at 20km , but it's just for the point ✔️

For miss scharnhorst, no matter how small it is , it is a weak spot, and the older designer knows it and tries to cover it up with a upper belt， while scharn didnt, and got blasted by DOY . Luck doesn't come in handle when u need it, so better prevent something bad happening than preying it will ever get hit.

BTW,It's great for reasonable people like u around

It's actually very unlikely that Scharnhorst was hit in the boiler's by DOY since she was facing away from DOY at the time, not broadside-on. Rather, the more likely scenario put forth by Author Antonio Bonomi is that Scharnhorst experienced engine troubles at this time. (Scharnhorst experienced similar engine troubles against both Glorious and Renown. Funnily enough, Gneisenau never experienced the same engine problems that Scharnhorst did) In either event, Scharnhorst was hit and shortly after her speed dropped. Whether or not this was a direct consequence of the hit itself can never be known for sure, but it looks very unlikely.

WW2 Bismarck command tower, no slope, blasted open( no a very good example but u get the point )

Conclusion: 2nd Reich is the best! All hail the kaiser !

Its worth noting that Great Britain eventually abandoned heavy armor on their command towers altogether, arguing that the likeliness of such a small area ever getting hit was so small so as to be worth leaving the area unarmored (outside of splinter protection) to conserve weight.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

A lot of it has to do with assumptions about how the ship will fight. Both the Germans and British assumed in designing their ships that they'd be fighting in the North Sea or North Atlantic much of the time. They also assumed that optical fire control was all they'd have (radar didn't exist when these ships were being designed and built). So, both navies figured a lot of the time they'd be firing at each other at 10,000 yards or even less with fairly flat trajectories. They did make concessions for longer ranged engagements but optimized their ships for shorter range ones.

That's why, in part, the Germans stuck with armor above the belt for example. The British went for the heaviest belt they could manage on the tonnage. This, again in part, explains why both navies wanted a heavy secondary battery. They assumed these guns would be useful in a 10,000 yard fight. So, they compromised towards better surface fire power and less AA fire power.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Well , they did get us to space , Our m1 abrams uses a german gun , The mp5 is one of if not the best gun . They did build the first jet plane. Can u back up your comment ?

The OP comment was the best weapons. The V2 may have been the first operational ballistic missile, but it was really a pretty crappy design. US engineers got a look in late 1944, early 1945 even before the war ended and pretty much discarded the design almost entirely. For example, Charles Bossart of Convair in the US was tasked with designing an airframe for an early US ballistic missile (Project MX 774 HIROC) that was to be the US version of the V2-- at least in 1945--

HIs design for the fuel tanks on ballistic missiles using the wall of the missile itself as the fuel tank wall and getting rigidity by pressurization is still the norm today on large liquid fuelled rockets. So, the Germans never really had "the best" except for a short period where they had no competition.

The M1 tank may now use a German designed gun, but again, is it "the best?" That's arguable. The British L7 105mm has a much longer history of success as a tank gun, so I'd say the jury's out on the 120mm.

The MP 5 is a decent SMG. So? Is it the "The best?" I'd say you'd get a lot of argument on that.

They didn't build the first operational jet fighter plane. The US did. The P-59 beat the Me 262 and Meteor into operational service. The US simply decided it wasn't better enough to warrant sending it into combat and chose to use it for development and training of ground crew on jets instead. Doesn't change that it could have been used if the US had chosen to do so. The first jet to fly, the He 178, was little more than a demonstration prototype that teetered on the edge of disaster as a design. From there, it really is more of a three-way race with Britain, Germany, and the US all building jets. As for "the best" of that period (1944 -45) it's a toss up between the Meteor and P-80. Both are better planes than the Me 262 in overall terms. What really does the Me 262 in is it's crap engines that on average would last maybe two or three flights before needing changing. Makes the plane almost worthless.

"The Best" is a pretty amorphous thing. It can mean different things depending on how you look at something. For example, many people claim a Mercedes or BMW is "The Best" when it comes to cars. I don't see it that way because both marques are horribly unreliable and nearly impossible to easily repair. I see their engineering as overly complex and often pedantic in design rather than "The Best." I'd prefer reliable and easy to fix since the primary function of a personal car is to be available to use reliably on a daily basis.

So, I stand by the statement that the Germans don't usually come up with "The Best." They come up with stuff that, from an engineering standpoint, is often really neat and sometimes clever. But, where they like complexity and "elegant" design, I prefer simplicity and utility. It's all in your viewpoint. But, given that most German engineering doesn't become the standard, I'd say it's often very good, but rarely "The Best."

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Werner von bron , came over and ran the space program . He was the brains behind the atlas rocket , your info is wrong !! The german jet was the first to see combat, not the usa jet ! How can u say the british tanks gun is better and proven better ? There werent many british tanks in the gulf or middle east wars, so the Abrams and its german gun were tested way more than the brit gun. Have u forgotten the germans lack of materials for there jet ? ,

I think the atlas rocket proves the germans were the experts in rockets. Also the mp5, is the main gun for close quarters . most swat / fbi teams in the world use it.

Talking about cars ? Volkswagon , maybe the best made car . Also remember the germans used synthetic oil, cause of there lack of materials. , thats why the me262 had such problems. Go look at noble prize winners from 1900 till the start of the war .

Also operation paperclip , killed to find the german scientists , who were in the lead for rockets, gas warfare , Submarine warfare ! Why did the world fight over german scientists if we already had the same stuff ?

Also Einstein who helped make the bomb was german / austrian . Also the germans lead in diesel subs. Also the V1 and V2 rockets , we had nothing like it nor did any other country.

I agree its not better the american stuff. But in ww2 it was. Now america makes the best arms , But for the size of germany and the cost of 2 wars, they are by far top 2 in world in military arms.

From there, it really is more of a three-way race with Britain, Germany, and the US all building jets. As for "the best" of that period (1944 -45) it's a toss up between the Meteor and P-80. Both are better planes than the Me 262 in overall terms. What really does the Me 262 in is it's crap engines that on average would last maybe two or three flights before needing changing. Makes the plane almost worthless.

2

I mean, the Meteor F1 was incapable of flying in a straight line (and most everyone agrees that the 262 to was superior to any WWII Meteor variant on paper) and the P-80 suffered dreadfully from teething problems during the war and was a notorious pilot killer, among them America's top scoring ace Richard Bong (Who, on a side note, is practically worshiped in his hometown of Superior Wisconsin xD ). After the war the US did a side-by-side evaluation of the P-80 and the Me262 and had the following to say.. "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (900 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number (the Me 262A's being at M 0.86), from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter." So even the US thought the Me262 was superior.

I mean, yeah, the engines were an issue... no doubt... but the Meteor and the P-80 had their own teething problems which were never solved before the war's end... overall the Me262 was a superior aircraft to both the Meteor and P-80 (by the US's own admission, mind you) and is especially above their league in terms of firepower and ordinance.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Werner von bron , came over and ran the space program . He was the brains behind the atlas rocket , your info is wrong !! The german jet was the first to see combat, not the usa jet ! How can u say the british tanks gun is better and proven better ? There werent many british tanks in the gulf or middle east wars, so the Abrams and its german gun were tested way more than the brit gun. Have u forgotten the germans lack of materials for there jet ? ,

I think the atlas rocket proves the germans were the experts in rockets. Also the mp5, is the main gun for close quarters . most swat / fbi teams in the world use it.

Talking about cars ? Volkswagon , maybe the best made car . Also remember the germans used synthetic oil, cause of there lack of materials. , thats why the me262 had such problems. Go look at noble prize winners from 1900 till the start of the war .

Also operation paperclip , killed to find the german scientists , who were in the lead for rockets, gas warfare , Submarine warfare ! Why did the world fight over german scientists if we already had the same stuff ?

Also Einstein who helped make the bomb was german / austrian . Also the germans lead in diesel subs. Also the V1 and V2 rockets , we had nothing like it nor did any other country.

I agree its not better the american stuff. But in ww2 it was. Now america makes the best arms , But for the size of germany and the cost of 2 wars, they are by far top 2 in world in military arms.

I had this discussion more than once. It's pretty obvious your knowledge on the subjects listed is rather superficial, not to be mean. I really do mean that, it's just an observation.

For example, the US copied the V1 as the JB 3 / Loon and flew their first one just 60 days after the first V1 was launched on London. But the US had stuff equivalent:

For example, you have gotten the US ballistic missile programs completely wrong. There were two programs in 1944 - 45 and this switched to three in 1947 when the USAF was created.

In 1945, the US Army had a program and the US Navy another, and largely separate, program. Unlike Germany, where desperation was the norm, the US programs were on a less frantic, and far better funded and equipped pace of development. I mentioned project MX 774 (aka HIROC) which was the US equivalent of the V2 program in 1944 - 45. As I said, Convair's engineers looked at the V2 airframe and design and dumped it totally for a completely new one of their own. The lead engineer easily was the equal or better of Von Braun as an engineer.

Hughes Aircraft (Raytheon today) rejected the German gyro guidance system out-of-hand and developed the Asuza system using a combination of ground based radar and telemetry to guide the rocket in the boost phase that remained viable and used by everybody well into the 60's.

Reaction Motors Inc. (RMI) developed a new engine and got a swivel nozzle to work for it, something the Germans tried and failed with the V2. That eliminated the use of the graphite veins and increased usable thrust. It also made the tail fins of the V2 redundant. MX 774 retained them "just in case" but the engineers were confident it would fly without them.

For SAM's the US had at least 5 programs running in 1945: MX 606 Gapa, MX 794 Wizard, MX 795 Thumper, Nike, and Bumblebee. They had two AAM's about to go into flight testing: JB 3 Tiamat and MX 799 Firebird. Both were years ahead in design of the crappy German X-4 Ruhrstal or slightly better Hs 298 missiles. The US ones used either beam riding or semi-active radar homing for guidance rather than an unworkable CLOS joystick system.

The Atlas rocket program owes virtually nothing to German engineering. The airframe is totally a Convair / US engineered design. The engines are of US design (North American based on their development work with Navajo), and the guidance system was based on the earlier Hughes Azusa system. One need only look at a list of the contractors involved to see that there were few, if any ex-Paperclip German engineers on that program, not to mention the sheer number of different companies involved. Atlas was also conceived as an intermediate design with Titan being the preferred ICBM program. Atlas was intended to get something working sooner to fill the gap until Titan came on line.

The one ballistic missile that went anywhere due to primarily Paperclip German engineers was Corporal. That's because the Paperclip engineers with Von Braun were limited to US Army developments post war for the most part. The USAF and USN programs (such as Jupiter, Thor, or Polaris) were run outside of that group almost entirely. Von Braun's big contribution was with NASA (formerly NACA) in being a pitchman for selling the government and Congress to fund a Moon program.

As this is a ship board mostly, a bit on that. Submarines.

The Japanese developed high speed submarines independent of the Germans, and actually got theirs in service before the Type XXI starting with Experimental boat 71:

Then they developed the I 201 class of high speed submarine. The US examined these like they did the Type XXI after the war, and for the same reason:

In fact, the only real surprise with the Type XXI was it's large GHG sonar array

Well, that's enough for now. It proves my point.

Edited March 11 by Murotsu

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I mean, the Meteor F1 was incapable of flying in a straight line (and most everyone agrees that the 262 to was superior to any WWII Meteor variant on paper) and the P-80 suffered dreadfully from teething problems during the war and was a notorious pilot killer, among them America's top scoring ace Richard Bong (Who, on a side note, is practically worshiped in his hometown of Superior Wisconsin xD ). After the war the US did a side-by-side evaluation of the P-80 and the Me262 and had the following to say.. "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (900 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number (the Me 262A's being at M 0.86), from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter." So even the US thought the Me262 was superior.

I mean, yeah, the engines were an issue... no doubt... but the Meteor and the P-80 had their own teething problems which were never solved before the war's end... overall the Me262 was a superior aircraft to both the Meteor and P-80 (by the US's own admission, mind you) and is especially above their league in terms of firepower and ordinance.

Let it go guy. I really don't want to go over this for the Nteenth time. Besides, this is mostly a ship related board and I'd rather see more of your details on German ships.